Jump to content

Talk:Billy the Kid/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

www.aboutbillythekid.com

To editor Winkelvi: When I chose this source for the height and weight, it was because it had already been used in the article at <ref name="aboutbilly"> (which is why I named the new reference "aboutbilly2"). If this source has already been accepted in the article as a reliable one for other purposes, then how is it that it is unreliable for the purpose of proving the kid's height and weight?  Stick to sources! Paine  14:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the source already used in the article? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
It's in the Grave marker section, #107.  Stick to sources! Paine  14:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, if you read the Prelude section you will find that the article indeed does support the kid at work for Tunstall as a "cowboy" before he was repositioned as a "guard".  Stick to sources! Paine  15:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
But the aboutbillythekid.com site is not accepted as reliable, and should have been removed before now. As I said during the last GA review regarding this source: a personally assembled website; I'm especially concerned that the entire "after death" paragraph with details about the death certificate is cited to this source, and something more reliable needs to be found. That paragraph was removed at the time, but apparently the second cite I mentioned remained; I still think that any material included from the site does not meet Wikipedia reliability standards, and will end up being challenged when the GA nomination is finally picked up for review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it's not a reliable source and it needs to be removed. As far as the GA nomination being picked up for review, BlueMoonset, I don't see that happening any time soon. It's been how many months on the list? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
And you base your opinion about the source's reliability on what? If you read the source, then you will find that it uses other reliable sources for its information. The About Billy the Kid website has been in place for quite a while and is remarkably void of spam. The creators of the site have gone to great lengths to ensure that they are not spreading rumors and instead are informing their readers of facts about the kid. You can expect to need a consensus to remove the source entirely from the article.  Stick to sources! Paine  16:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The website has no journalistic oversight. It's basically a personal blog written by a BtK enthusiast. Both of those points put the website in the unreliable source category. As far as consensus, it already exists: both BlueMoonset and I have said it's an unreliable source and should stay out. At this point, the onus is on you to prove it's reliable, Paine Ellsworth. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, the website is not a "personal blog", and being written by someone who is an enthusiast does not nor should not be a reason to consider the information unreliable. Thank you for discussing this with me.  Stick to sources! Paine  16:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
You've stated why you believe it should not be considered unreliable. You have have to present evidence as to why it is a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. I'm open to being persuaded that it is a reliable source, but please know that my final conclusion on the subject will be based on policy and guidelines alone. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
No, you've stated why you believe the website should be considered unreliable, and I have challenged your opinion. It is for you to show by way of policy or guideline why aboutbillythekid.com should, after all this time, be branded unreliable.  Stick to sources! Paine  16:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I imagine that it will be selected for GA review by mid- to late May. The nomination was submitted 70 days ago, and it's currently 87th out of 381 nominations in all, but only the 40th oldest that hasn't been selected for review. The GA Cup competition puts an extra premium on the ten oldest unreviewed nominations, which helps keep the older nominations moving. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: It's not going to get picked up or passed if Paine Ellsworth continues to edit war at the article, as he now is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Edit warring is a serious charge that is thus far unsupported!  Stick to sources! Paine  16:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree that aboutbillythekid.com is unreliable, and it should be allowed to stay in the article. If the GA reviewers agree that it's not reliable, then it can be removed at that time.  Stick to sources! Paine  16:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Someone who was involved in the previous GAR for this article just did agree it is an unreliable source. He has also mentioned why it would not stand in the next GAR. Please reverse your insertion of it. If you do not, it would seem that your arguments here in combination with reverting my appropriate removal is really more about making a point than caring about the integrity of the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The two editors here who have labeled the website unreliable have expressed their opinions just as I have expressed mine. Neither editor has shown in a policy or guideline why they think the website is unreliable. And I haven't seen you rushing to revert your "cowboy → ranch hand" edit even though I've shown you in the article where "cowboy" actually is supported.  Stick to sources! Paine  16:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
But I did change it, as soon as you commented about it, adding "cowboy" back in but leaving "ranch hand" because he worked in that capacity, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
So sorry. I missed that – mybad.  Stick to sources! Paine  16:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, I have watched this article for years and have considered myself not an "owner" of the article, but definitely someone who cares whether or not edits to the article are improvements. So please do assume good faith on my part as I continue to do so on your part, and stop with the accusations both outright and veiled. Thank you for that!  Stick to sources! Paine  16:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I can only go by the tone of your comments, the edit reversion in spite of agreement by two editors (one being the previous GA reviewer of this article, the other being the person who has worked extensively on this article and nominated it for GA twice), your continued nit-picking, and what appears to be an effort to keep arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than to keep the integrity of the article as it awaits another GA review. It's difficult to maintain good faith in the face of such behavior and negative interaction. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we need to start over, because neither of us should have any real reason to disrespect each other. At risk of continuing with a "tone" you don't like (forgive me if that is how you perceive it), this argument will go on until you or someone else cites a Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports the unreliability of the long-trusted website.  Stick to sources! Paine  16:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Long trusted" by whom? As far as the onus being on me or BlueMoonset, I have to disagree. YOU reverted the source back in. Removing it again would constitute an edit war - which I am not interested in. Because you are insisting the source should stay as is and have reverted it back in, the onus is now on you, not me, not BlueMoonset. Please do something - anything other than giving your personal opinion - to convince us why the source is reliable and complies with Wikipedia policies on reliability and sourcing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The website in question is the creation of a single author, Marcelle Brothers, as it states on its home page—she specifically says "my web site". Per WP:USERGENERATED, such sources are "largely not acceptable". So there is a built-in presumption that such sites are not reliable. There is always the option of going to the reliable sources noticeboard to try to determine whether this site might be one of the exceptions that are acceptable. Without such a determination, I don't see how the retention of the source and its information can be justified at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The website seems generally accurate and in-depth in the information it provides about Billy the Kid (with a few errors) when compared to reliable books and articles. As far as I can tell it doesn't say where it got the information on Billy's height and weight. (Due to his age and circumstance, presumably his weight, & possibly height, fluctuated over time.) I understand what you're saying about user generated sources, but it still might be useful to go to the reliable sources noticeboard to see if it qualifies for an exception. I also would also recommend including the site on the external links section because it does provides in-depth information for readers who would like to learn more about the subject. Libertybison (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

To editors BlueMoonset, Libertybison, WV and Maunus: Thank you for discussing this with me, and especially for the content guideline cited by you, BlueMoonset. I've been out!voted by several good and able editors, so it would strongly appear that a noticeboard hearing would not favor an exception for this remarkable Brothers website that has itself cited several reliable sources for its information. Since Brothers' site apparently has not been mentioned at any reliable third-party sources that I can find, then I must turn myself around on this and agree to its similarity to Wikipedia in its inability to be used as a reference source here. And with all due respect, WV, it was you who removed the source from the article completely, so the onus was on you to provide a policy or guideline for the edit, preferably in your edit summary. Libertybison's idea to include the website in the External links section is, I think, excellent, and I will go ahead and add it there. I'm truly sorry for what you're presently going through, WV, and I hope the time will be reduced. Other than your tendency to argue and accuse rather than to simply discuss, I know you're a good editor with basic desire to improve this reference work. In the future, I hope we can be friendlier when we deal with each other. Best to you and yours!  Paine  01:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I also think it is fine as an EL.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, once this source was removed, the Foor information was no longer supported (Wallis doesn't mention him, so I've removed Wallis as a source for that sentence). I did find another reliable source (a published book), though it gives 1931 rather than 1932 for the date the stone was erected; it also gives a rather different account of the other stone which I find more credible than the one in that dubious student newspaper source, so I've revised that sentence as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Birth of Billy the Kid

For reasons that I can't fathom, primary source material continues to be deleted from this article. It is source material that concerns the birth of the person called Billy the Kid. It provides the date ( June 19, 1851 )that Catherine Devine and Patrick McCarty were married at the Church of St. Peter in lower Manhattan. It also provides the street address ( 210 Greene Street ), also in lower Manhattan, a short distance from the Church of St. Peter, where the Kid was born on September 17, 1859. The suppression of the marriage information and street address of 210 Greene Street is very strange considering that part of that info is contained in Note A ( Letter from Rev. James B. Roberts to Jack DeMattos - March 4, 1979 ). That letter was reproduced in "The Search for Billy Kid's Roots - Is Over" by Jack DeMattos in the January 1980 issue of Real West. Both the letter and the article provide the marriaage record of the Kid's parents, his date of birth and the record of his baptism eleven days later. The article also provided important supporting material ( census records, and New York City Directory records ) showing that the family lived at 210 Greene Street. More than 36 years after the publication of this documented material, there is no reason to suppress it Wikipedia. I hope that all of you who look to Wikipedia as a source of accurate information on historical figures will agree and insist that the marriage date of June 19, 1851 and the street address of 210 Greene Street ( which are really the only changes ) be restored to this article. Jackartist (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In response to your concerns, the problem is that according to Wikipedia rules a personal letter itself usually cannot be cited as a source, see WP:NOR. If you want to make an edit with the information about the 1851 marriage, all one has to do is create a citation to the 1980 Real West article by DeMattos (which has the information about the marriage, address and letter). Libertybison (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
In point of fact, there is a great deal of disagreement among reputable scholars as to when Billy the Kid was born, what his father's name was, even whether he was born in New York City. That his mother was named Catherine doesn't seem to be open to debate, but there were a lot of Catherine McCartys in NYC, and some of them had two sons named Henry and Joseph. DeMattos has identified one, but this is far from the only one, and Wikipedia isn't in the business of selecting between competing theories: there is no guarantee that the Catherine and Henry involved in the primary source was the Henry who grew up to become Billy the Kid. Two of the major sources in the article, by Utley and Wallis, don't go beyond saying that the Henry who became Billy was probably born to Catherine in NYC in 1859, but whether September or November or some other time is unclear. Whether Joseph was older or younger than Henry is also not clear: Wallis says Joseph was "probably older", Utley doesn't even go that far. Neither is willing to endorse DeMattos, and I don't see how we can justify doing so. We can certainly present the likeliest possibilities, based on sources such as Utley and Wallis, which is probably the most appropriate and responsible course given the lack of surety. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Demattos' claims are dubious. We should stick the known BtK experts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Billy the Kid's mother, Catherine McCarty on two occasions (in 1867 and 1868 Indianapolis city directories) stated she was the widow of a Michael McCarty, not Patrick. As you can read in Waldo E. Koop's article "Billy the Kid: The Trail of a Kansas Legend", reprinted here in The Billy the Kid Reader. (The article, from 1965, only mentions the 1868 directory entry, so here's the 1867 entry from Internet Archive.) Most researchers believe the woman in the Indianapolis directories is the same Catherine due to future husband, William Antrim (who's documented living in Indianapolis at the time) claiming to have known her for six years in an 1871 affidavit, see here (The full affidavit is in Koop's article but the page images are cut out by Google Books). Libertybison (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
By the way, Jackartist, who started this thread, was a sockpuppet of Jack DeMattos, and has been indefinitely blocked. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I think somebody reverted the removal of this discussion. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
In regards to brother Joseph's age most researchers now feel pretty confident he was born around 1863 and wasn't older. See Nolan's The West of Billy the Kid brief bio here (along with footnote #21 here ) Nolan says the older age for Joseph comes from his death certificate in 1930 when his body was donated to science while the 1863 age for Joseph came from an 1885 Colorado census record. And that's were the debate stood for years but since the late 1990's census records have been put into searchable databases and researchers were able to find Joseph in a couple of other census records, like this one from 1880 here which confirm the c.1863 age. Utley's book was written in 1989 before those databases were created and the other census records were found.
Also why is there an exact birthdate for Joseph in the article? Where does it come from? (DeMattos's article?) I ask because it's not sourced in the article at all. Libertybison (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the comments I made about the later census records are my own and Nolan only mentions the 1885 census. Libertybison (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Nolan also mentioned a 1916 voter application by Joseph where he said he was born in 1863 here, that I missed in my earlier post. Libertybison (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove BTK from "serial killer" categories?

Fishlandia (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Fishlandia, the article isn't in any of them that I can see. Can you point to where this is true? Thanks. (He wasn't a serial killer by the current definition, though he did kill a number of people.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, BlueMoonset. Thanks for pointing this out. On his Talk page he's His Talk page is listed in three serial killer-related categories: Category:C-Class Serial killer-related articles, Category:Mid-importance Serial killer-related articles and Category:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force. I assumed that Article pages and Talk pages automatically share the same categories, and didn't check the Article page. Learn something new ever' day. (And just now learned how to link to categories, too.) Fishlandia (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Fishlandia, all three categories are automatically generated here because the Serial Killer task force has apparently expressed some interest in this article—this doesn't mean he actually is generally considered one. I suppose, if it matters, we could ask the task force whether they actually consider Billy as part of their bailiwick, or if this was placed by an overenthusiastic editor back in the day, a good seven years ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Billy's chance in hell of this article making it to "good article" status

It's good to see that BlackJack has taken this on; God knows the article needs some attention, and he's identified the most serious problems right off the bat. Now maybe something can get done (well, at least when he gets back from his holiday).;-)

I believe this has been discussed before, but it's still jarring how the lede calls our protagonist "Bonney", the next section calls him "McCarty", then it's back to "Bonney" for the rest of the article. I imagine the casual reader will find this confusing at first glance.

At any rate, getting this muddle into good shape will surely be a cooperative effort. I hope that committed editors can avoid getting entangled in tangential issues and focus on the article, if it is to have Billy's chance in hell of getting to "good article" status. I expect the many dubious sources used for references will have to be addressed. Carlstak (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right, the name has been discussed before. And it was noted by an experienced, long-time editor (Maunus) that the best solution was employed (as it still stands): to use the commonly used surname in the lede, use his birth name in the following section and then transition to the commonly used surname, at the time he changed his name, for the remainder of the article.[1] As far as "the many dubious sources", I can't even imagine to what you are referring. The sources have been vetted and gone over several times. As I recall, the same editor mentioned above as well as BlueMoonset noted months ago that the article was not only well referenced, but that it looked to be in good shape for GA. If there are any dubious sources in the article, it's a minor oversight, which will be caught and corrected. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't get your panties in a twist, everything isn't about you, and it'll all come out in the wash anyway. The article months ago was in much worse shape than it is now, and wasn't even close to GA, and it still isn't. It was momentarily "promoted" to GA status, and that was an embarrassing mistake by an inexperienced reviewer who quickly withdrew it. Carlstak (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Now is the time to get the article up to snuff

In the "Legacy" subsection of his review, BlackJack says:

"I'm happy with the first three sub-sections, especially the photographic one, but disappointed that there is no narrative describing the growth of Bonney's "legendary" status in American folklore. A list is a useful adjunct but does not per se tell the story. The list suggests that the cultural references began in the 1900s with a stage play and a silent movie. What propelled the creation of these works and how did they, in turn, generate an ongoing interest in this person who has been depicted and written about many times in the last hundred years?"

I thought Robert Utley's comments in his article(subscription required) on Billy the Kid at American National Biography Online, published by Oxford University Press, were pertinent:

"In history Billy the Kid rates hardly a footnote. In folklore he is a towering figure throughout the world. In the public imagination, two Kids have vied with each other since 1881. The first is the merciless outlaw killer; the other is the young Robin Hood whose guns blazed for the poor and downtrodden against the entrenched interests. The latter image, created by Walter Noble Burns's Saga of Billy the Kid (1926), was the model for subsequent books, articles, movies, and even an orchestral suite and ballet. For millions, Billy still rides as the ultimate symbol of the violence of the Old West."

Billy's "legendary" status is the most important aspect of the man, otherwise he wouldn't be notable at all, so as BlackJack suggests, the article should reflect that. BlackJack is on vacation and the review is on hold; now would be the time to address the issues he mentions and get the article up to snuff.

Stephen Tatum's Inventing Billy the Kid: Visions of the Outlaw in America examines the books, films, and poetry, as well as Aaron Copland's ballet, that contributed to the legend of the Kid. Jon Tuska's Billy the Kid: His Life and Legend contains bibliographical essays treating Billy the Kid in fiction, film, and cultural criticism. Both these books, neither of which has been consulted for the article, would be useful as sources to start developing a section on the formation of his legend. Carlstak (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to be trimmed and rewritten

The biggest problem with this article is the fact that it is about a person who was actually a very minor character in the history of the American Old West, compared to, say, John C. Fremont, or Kit Carson. He's notable only because of his legendary status in folklore, and worse for historians, little of his life is historically documented. Of course this fact complicates the writing of an encyclopedic article about him, and if it is to be sourced, Wikipedians must rely on decidedly non-academic sources for much of the information, little of which could be considered high-quality, as most of it is written by professional writers, rather than historians. These writers and the magazines or websites they write for are generally targeting a mass audience that wants to be entertained, and footnotes in the material (read "product") they produce are a rarity. For example, History.com would be considered a laughably inadequate and unreliable source for the good article about Albert Einstein, and will be found only in one external link to videos about him.

Also, as BlackJack mentioned, many of the sources used in the article disagree on particular facts, naturally, given the dearth of historical documentation from primary sources, so there isn't much for secondary sources to interpret. I mean, we're talking about a two-bit punk with no memorable achievements, other than his undeserved reputation, so what can we expect?

Given these impediments to constructing a long encyclopedic article about someone who was really a pathetic, marginal figure in the history of the US, I suggest that the article be trimmed and rewritten, with more reliance on the footnoted works cited. You might look to the featured article, Gregor MacGregor, for an example of a well-written article about a rogue who led a colorful life. Carlstak (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This kind of comment doesnt strike me as helpful in the least, only confrontational and insulting. I don't see what you think this attitude will accomplish. Secondly, the length of an article has nothing to do with how relatively important or relatvely "pathetic" a person is, but is a function only of size of the body of literature about the topic and the article length guidelines. Your personal opinion about BTK's historical relevance is really fundamentally irrelevant. I think that probably by making this comment, you have removed jeopardized any chance of having a meaningful review here, and frankly I think you should stop the review and let someone else take it over. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing helpful about your comments. Your characterization of Bonney as "a minor character" in history is misdirected, at best. If you have something truly helpful to add, please do. If not, it would seem that your comments are only meant for trolling and disruption. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Both you fellows are reacting too emotionally to a mere suggestion. Of course this is just my opinion, but we are not talking about a colossus of history here. As you can see, I never suggested that he wasn't notable enough to deserve an article, just that it's his legend, rather than anything he actually did, that makes him notable enough for an article. After all, he really was minor league when it comes to criminality, unlike John Dillinger, for instance. You may take offense at the words I use in my description of him, but they are accurate.
Here are quotes from Blackjack's review of different sections:
"I can't say that I'm happy with the article which has come to GAR a third time despite a lot of work still being necessary."
"I find the information here confusing and it was not well written."
"Short paragraphs again in this section. Better structure needed per MOS."
"...disappointed that there is no narrative describing the growth of Bonney's "legendary" status in American folklore.
"When Tunstall was bothered by rustlers who got the local sheriff to attach nearly US$40,000 of Tunstall's property and livestock, he changed the focus of Bonney's position from cowboy to guard". This sentence is very poor English and must be rewritten."
Here's a quote from Maunus:
"Just noting that the bibliography and citations is still a mess - many different formats, repeated long cites, short cites, linked cited unlinked, some formatted with templates others unformatted."
Do these sound like a description of an article anywhere near GA status?
The article shouldn't have been submitted for GA review till the easily fixed problems including bad grammar, poor sentence structure, and a tangled mess of citation were addressed; it imposes an extra burden on the reviewer. Most of the present content could be kept in a rewrite, but a trimming would do it good, and possibly in itself correct some of the defects that BlackJack pointed out. Carlstak (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that it was once again premature to nominate the article after having made no major improvements, but there is no need for the level of confrontation, especially not when the reviewer is already doing a fine job of pointing out the article's flaws.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Manaus. I'm gathering copies of texts to use as sources to develop BlackJack's desired "narrative describing the growth of Bonney's "legendary" status in American folklore" in the "Legacy" section. Would you care to help construct one, to be worked on in a sandbox? I've made requests through the interlibrary loan service, so it may be a couple of weeks before I get the texts I want. Perhaps you already have some? Carlstak (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You obviously have a problem, Winkelvi, and a hint to what it might be is found on your user page, where you still claim credit for bringing this article to GA status,and even have the GA badge on it, which is disingenuous, to say the least. You are your own worst enemy in getting this article to GA status, as you have a penchant for alienating the people who could help you get it there. You don't seem to realize that every time you attack an editor on the talk page, you are contributing to the appearance of instability, and lessen its chances. Carlstak (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
You started this section stating you think the article is useless and overblown as is and that it needs to be completely rewritten. Now you have switched to harping on me, personally. Neither of which is about improving the article and bringing it to GA. Among your attacks on me is referring to me as disingenuous. What I happen to think is truly disingenuous: you starting a thread that is now obviously a vehicle to bait me and try to get me into a pissing contest with you in order to have any GA reviewer see the article as unstable. Considering all this, my belief that your original post in this thread was solely for purposes of trolling stands. I repeat: There is nothing helpful about your comments. I submit: You intended to use this for trolling so that I would respond, and that this thread would contribute to the appearance of instability. You did the same at this article and talk page a few months ago, too. In closing: I momentarily took the bait you laid out, and now I am spitting it out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
My dear fellow, frothing at the mouth won't advance this article's long, cruel slog to a status it probably will never reach, because of comments like yours above. Carlstak (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

$40,000 attachment - Tunstall (re GA Review)

In regards to the GA reviewer's comments (in Lincoln County War #2) about Tunstall and the $40,000 attachment, here are links to pages 188 and 189 in Nolan's The Lincoln County War: A Documentary History, 2009 edition used as a source for the passage. Firstly, the attachment wasn't directly related to the rustlers (although both were backed by Dolan and the others). It was a court order to attach $8,000 worth of property belonging to Alexander McSween to satisfy a claimed debt. Sheriff Brady used the court order attach as much property of Tunstall in order to drive him out of business, using the theory that Tunstall and McSween were business partners. Nolan disputes that Tunstall and McSween were in fact business partners. The $40,000 figure quoted by McSween seems to include the total amount attached not just the property owned by Tunstall. Libertybison (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Billy the Kid/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 12:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


Starting review

I'll start this review soon. Jack | talk page 12:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I've done an initial read of the article and can't see any obvious "immediate failure" issues so I think a full review will commence soon. I need to check the article history and talk pages first to complete the preliminaries. Meanwhile, I'm adding the template below which I will use for formal marking. I'd like to thank editors Winkelvi and Patient Zero for their offers of assistance. Jack | talk page 09:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Please let me know of any questions or additional information that would help the review process. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 09:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

GA review criteria

Checklist tools

= pass | = fail | = neutral (may need second opinion) | = don't know (default)

Checking for immediate failure conditions

WP:WIAGA#Immediate_failures states that an article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as "quick failing") if, prior to the review:

  1. it is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria:
  2. it contains copyright infringements:
  3. it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid — e.g., {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}:
  4. the article is not stable due to edit warring on the page:

If the article has not failed any one of the above four tests, a full review will follow:

I've decided, with some reservations, to take the article forward to full review on the grounds that I am not failing any of the above four conditions. I'm not, at this stage, happy about it meeting the six good article criteria but, for the purpose of the immediate failure exercise, I am neutral. Equally, although there is no actual edit-warring, I'm neutral on the question of stability because there is evidence of considerable disagreement and extensive, frequent revision in recent months. Please go to the end of the next section for the full review questions. Jack | talk page 14:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Full review criteria checks

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):
    C. No original research:
    D. No copyright violations:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Questions

I can't say that I'm happy with the article which has come to GAR a third time despite a lot of work still being necessary. I'm going to place the review on hold so that all of the questions and issues below can be addressed. I've provisionally marked the criteria above to reflect my current opinion of the article, but these marks are flexible pending your responses, after which I'll be happy to review the article again. Please note that I will be on holiday for most of June and so it will be July before I'm available again. I will be using the site for the next couple of days and so can deal with any immediate questions then. Jack | talk page 14:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Early life

I find the information here confusing and it was not well written: e.g., I've tried to improve the structure of the first paragraph by moving the baptism piece into the opening sentence for better continuity. The second paragraph needs more data so that it can be properly structured. When did McCarty's father die? What happened to Billy while Catherine and Joseph were in Indianapolis and how long were they there (I see an editor has now partly answered this)? Was Billy ever called Antrim (excluding his phase as "Kid Antrim") and, if not, why not? Do we know when Joseph took the name?

First crimes

  1. Are we absolutely sure about the dates 16 Sept 1874 and 16 Sept 1875, especially given Billy's birthday on 17 Sept? It seems a coincidence that he started stealing on the anniversary of his mother's death.
  2. When he was arrested in Sept 1875, I presume he was jailed in Silver City itself? Was Antrim living in Silver City when Billy found him, or elsewhere? There is more confusion here as the next paragraph begins by saying Billy fled to Arizona after his escape so when, where and for how long was he taking refuge with Antrim?
  3. How long did McCarty work for Hooker and whereabouts in Arizona was Hooker's spread, given that Billy moved to SE Arizona in 1876?
  4. Was John R. Mackie a United States Cavalry private or had he been in the cavalry of another country (GB, for example)? More precise link preferred if known.
  5. Why did McCarty become known as "Kid Antrim"? Had he taken his stepfather's surname because, if so, he should not be called McCarty in this section?
  6. Was John Jones already a friend of McCarty and, if so, how did they know each other? Or did they become friends after McCarty recovered his health?
  7. The band of rustlers who raided Chisum's cattle. Was this the Seven Rivers Warriors gang or the Jess Evans gang or who? If the former, then the structure of this paragraph is misleading.
  8. "After McCarty was spotted in Silver City by a resident, his involvement with the gang was mentioned in a local newspaper". What was the connection between someone recognising him in a place he used to live and his involvement in a gang operating elsewhere in the territory? The sentence needs explanation.
  9. MOS deprecates single sentence paragraphs.
  10. Again, there is a problem with dates because McCarty shot Cahill on 17 August 1877 and then was seriously ill for a lengthy period. So, when in 1877 did he become Bonney and when in late 1877 or early 1878 did he first meet Tunstall, presumably as Bonney?

Lincoln County War

  1. "After his return from Arizona to New Mexico, Bonney went to work for English businessman John Tunstall". In the previous section, we have read that McCarty/Bonney was involved in various other escapades and incidents when he first returned to New Mexico. What is the correct sequence of events and can dates be cited to support the sequence and provide some continuity of events?
  2. "When Tunstall was bothered by rustlers who got the local sheriff to attach nearly US$40,000 of Tunstall's property and livestock,[32] he changed the focus of Bonney's position from cowboy to guard". This sentence is very poor English and must be rewritten.
  3. Again, MOS deprecates single sentence paragraphs (end of Prelude sub-section).
  4. What is the name of the "town not far from Lincoln"?
  5. "Bonney and two men riding with him" were jailed. "Bonney and Brewer (were released from) from jail". What about the third man?
  6. "Learning of this turn of events, Deputy U.S. Marshal and friend of Bonney, Rob Widenmann, along with a detachment of soldiers, captured Sheriff Brady's jail guards, putting them behind bars and releasing both Bonney and Brewer from jail on February 23, 1878". Another sentence that must be rewritten, probably by being split into two or more sentences.
  7. "After his release at the hands of Widenmann" is poor English.
  8. The "Battle of Lincoln" narrative ends abruptly with Beckwith's death. How did the affair terminate (I believe the US Cavalry intervened) and how did Bonney get out of Lincoln?

Outlaw

  1. Short paragraphs again in this section. Better structure needed per MOS.
  2. "According to other sources, after Bonney had been advised that Grant intended to kill him. He walked up to Grant, told him he admired his revolver, and asked to examine it". This is more poor English. The first sentence is incomplete and needs a final clause.
  3. First mention of Garrett in main narrative is unlinked.

Capture and escape

  1. Newspaper names should be in italics (throughout article).
  2. Should "to trial" be "on trial"?

Legacy

I'm happy with the first three sub-sections, especially the photographic one, but disappointed that there is no narrative describing the growth of Bonney's "legendary" status in American folklore. A list is a useful adjunct but does not per se tell the story. The list suggests that the cultural references began in the 1900s with a stage play and a silent movie. What propelled the creation of these works and how did they, in turn, generate an ongoing interest in this person who has been depicted and written about many times in the last hundred years?

Some answers

Because there is so little known for sure about a lot of Billy's life, especially the early portions of it, that lack of definitive information is going to affect the article. Some of the questions raised have no clear answers, so we have to be especially careful of WP:OR. My first edits to the article during the last GA review, trying to regularize some prose, had to be redone when I got hold of the sources and discovered that they did not agree on these particular facts.

One of these—and it really should be addressed as part of this review—is Henry's actual date of birth. The baptismal information presupposes a father named Patrick, married to Catherine. This was Jack DeMattos's theory (he is blocked indefinitely, and used the Jackartist sockpuppet to try to get around the block). However, it's just one of many theories, and one not endorsed by a number of subsequent authors of Billy bios, including Wallis and Gardner. I think we should probably remove it. (A dubious birth date is November 23, from the Garrett book—it's the same as Garrett's co-author Ash Upson's birthday.) Catherine is listed as having a late husband named "Michael" in the 1867 and 1868 Indianapolis directories, although there are disagreements as to whether Catherine was ever married or a widow (Antrim may have been her first husband) and whether McCarty was her birth or married name. Joseph may be a full or half brother. For that matter, Billy gave his age as 25 to an 1880 census taker. All this is to say I'm skeptical of giving a definitive birth date based on the books I've read—Wallis, Utley, and Gardner, which are the ones I'll be referencing below—and think we should opt for "c. 1859". Giving a definitive husband's name is also dubious, though some of the possibilities could be mentioned.

Early life

I've "answered" much of this above. Joseph gave his name as Antrim and his age as 17 in the 1880 census; he was living in Colorado at the time. (There are some theories that Joseph was actually older than Billy, in part based on a later census and his death certificate.) See below for Henry using Antrim.

First Crimes

  • 1. The theft of butter occurred earlier in the year; Gardner says "April 1875". The Sombrero Jack theft was September 4 according to Wallis and Gardner; Billy was arrested on September 23 after the loot was found in his room.
  • 2. William Antrim had long since sold the house and farmed out the boys. One source has him away, mining, shortly after Catherine's death, and none give any hint that Antrim was in Silver City at the time of Billy's incarceration. The sources are vague as to where the stepfather was at the time (or they're guessing), and aside from the "refuge" being short and not going well, there's precious little detail.
  • 5. Wallis, p. 106: In November 1876, Henry, sporting the new name of Kid Antrim. He apparently used "Antrim" during this period, according to all three sources.
  • 10. He apparently became Bonney by the time he showed up in Seven Rivers around mid-October 1977 according to Gardner (p. 79); Utley places it around the same time or shortly before; Wallis is more vague.

I'm going to let others work on the rest, though I'm happy to consult the sources while I still have them (they'll have to be returned to the various libraries at some point; the Utley is Billy the Kid: A Short and Violent Life; the Gardner is To Hell on a Fast Horse). I'd like to suggest to those who plan to work on fixing issues raised in the review that they use interlibrary loan to get their hands on as many sources as possible—primarily including the most frequently cited books in the article—so you can be clear in your minds about who said what. Also, when there are competing theories, such as whether Catherine was married, who the husband might have been if so, and what that means for Billy's age and date of birth, I think we need to present what is known and/or guessed at while clearly identifying which is which, and that requires reliable sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • Just noting that the bibliography and citations is still a mess - many different formats, repeated long cites, short cites, linked cited unlinked, some formatted with templates others unformatted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Decision

Sorry, but in my honest opinion, this article is simply not ready for a GAR. The major point I raised about Billy's place in folklore has not been addressed and therefore the article still does not meet the "broad in its coverage" standard I believe is required. I'm more troubled by the altercations that have taken place in my absence and, sorry again, but the article is not stable. I'm failing it and I suggest that one editor should take sole responsibility for an agreed period and then it should be peer-reviewed to a point where some common ground is reached before it ever comes back to GAN. That's it. I'd have liked to pass this, being a big fan of the "westerns", but it just isn't ready yet. Jack | talk page 19:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, you bailed, and that's a bigger issue. The recent vandalism has nothing to do with the article's stability as it was usually taken care of swiftly. The discussions had nothing to do with the article's stability, either. From my standpoint, no one knew what was happening with the GAR or what was going to happen because you were nowhere to be found, and that doesn't seem appropriate -- accepting a huge article for GAR that was previously looked over by two experienced editors who felt it was ready for GAR back then, but then leaving for a month? What was the point of doing anything to the article if no one knew for sure you were even coming back to it or when? Leaving for weeks on end is not typical for GA reviews, am I right, BlackJack? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In fact his absence meant that there was plenty of time for you to have addressed his concerns and improved the article along the lines he suggested. You chose not to. The article has now been through 3 GARs without having developed substantially between any of the reviews.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In fact I "chose not to" because a close family member with whom I reside was diagnosed with cancer right after the GAR was taken up. In light of BJ's almost immediate departure from Wikipedia for a month and the needs of my immediate family member, what I actually chose was real life concerns, taking what life altering disease does and involves seriously, and real life relationships/needs. These immediately took precedence over wasting time with a GAR where the reviewer obviously didn't care about the responsibility he took on when accepting the GAR. He "chose not to" be involved. Knowing he was doing so, he should have passed the review to someone else rather than just taking off and then returning to fail it. He never even seemed to care about working together with editors on the review process, just issuing a list of wrongs and then expecting it all be taken care of while he was gone, however long that would be (which was never really clear). Sorry, but it all struck me as weird, odd, and completely open ended as well as unorthodox. In light of that unorthodoxy and uncaring, irresponsible attitude/absence, I decided to care about what was happening in my own home: a fight for life, a fight to keep the cancer struck family member sane, a fight to keep death away and choose love as well as life alive in my home. Stressing about an unorthodox GAR and the sudden disappearance of a reviewer was at the bottom of my importance list, just as this review was obviously at the bottom of the reviewers list. Cancer took me and my family member by surprise. The absence of the reviewer after taking on the GAR was planned. He bothered to pass another GAR on when he bailed, why not this one? It was all very strange, and remains so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I am very sorry to hear that and I wish you and your family member all the best. Certainly, real life problems should always trump wikipedia issues. It does seem a little odd though, for you to chide the reviewer for absence when in fact it was to your benefit and allowed you to focus on the most important issues you had going on. The reviewer had left copious comments for the nominator to act on, so I dont see what more could be expected from him than giving the nominator time to work. So now, maybe we should just get back to the business of handling our everyday lives and personal relations and improving the encyclopedia, and perhaps not renominate this article until it has been substantially improved by using the collective comments from the past 3 GA reviews.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
That is indeed upsetting news, please accept my condolences. I'm disappointed the article failed; I for one thought it would pass this time. We can always come back to this when you are ready to do so - take your time sir. Best --PatientZero talk 17:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Billy the Kid's sex life

Billy the Kid was a womanizer with Hispanic and Native American women; surely the article should mention his queridas (lovers) Celsa Gutiérrez, Abrana García, Nasaria Yerby, and Manuella Bowdre, as well as his supposedly chaste relationship with Paulita Maxwell from the wealthy and influential Maxwell family. Nolan, Wallis, and Utley all discuss this vital aspect of his life, and it seems likely that he fathered several children with these mistresses and girlfriends. Carlstak (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You raise an interesting question about Billy's romantic life. Unfortunately the subject hasn't really been investigated that thoroughly by researchers even in the well-researched books by Nolan and Utley. A partial exception is his relationship with Paulita Maxwell since Garrett finally caught up to Billy after he was tipped off that Billy might visit her, staking out her family's home. So the article's account of Billy's death is inaccurate and it definitely needs to address his relationship with Paulita. I'd recommend reading pages 29-34, 201 of this book by Mark Dworkin that came out last year which goes into detail about Billy's relationship with Paulita. For the other women I just don't think their's enough reliable evidence or even details to include them. Libertybison (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
In regards to Paulita and Billy's death, this article might be helpful too. Libertybison (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Libertybison. Those parts about Paulita in Dworkin are very illuminating. Funnily enough, I had read and taken notes on a bit of his book yesterday with Walter Noble Burns' myth-making effect on media in mind, not even thinking of Paulita Maxwell. I agree with your evaluation of the evidence on Billy's other girlfriends, and that they probably shouldn't be included in the article, although as Dworkin concedes about Celsa, there are dissenting viewpoints concerning these women. Carlstak (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The article should cover the Dudley court of inquiry of 1879

The article says nothing about an important repercussion of the Lincoln County War, i.e., the Dudley court of inquiry convened in 1879, in which Billy and José Chavez y Chavez testified. This is an essential part of Billy's story and, in my opinion, warrants a full accounting in its own section. Carlstak (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Tom O'Folliard photograph

According to Nolan here, the photograph used in the article that purports to be of O'Folliard is of disputed authenticity. The link to the Palace of the Governors Photo Archives at UNM provided on the Commons description only states that original uncropped digital image came from a negative (presumably donated) and not the original photograph. While it may be appropriate to include the image in the O'Folliard article while mentioning the debate over its authenticity, it should not be in the Billy the Kid article with the skepticism about it. Libertybison (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't have removed it without discussion. The photo has been discussed here previously, and, if memory serves, the decision by more than one editor was to keep it. Your move was bold, but I am reverting back. Discussion needs to now take place per WP:BRD, or, we could leave the photo in as there really is no meaningful skepticism surrounding it, except what comes from one author. The image is part of the state's historic archive, after all. Certainly the State of New Mexico historical archives reference to the photo as being O'Folliard is an acceptable, reliable source. See WP:TRUTH. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is a link to the previous discussion where the consensus was that despite Nolan's mention of a certain doubt, the doubt was not strong enough to warrant removal.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I looked over Nolan's subsequent books, The Billy the Kid Reader (2007) and the revised The Lincoln County War: A Documentary History (2009). Both contain the same image of O'Folliard but with no mention of any questions about authenticity (which I've linked). I did a Google search and couldn't find any reliable sources questioning whether the photo is O'Folliard or any comments by Nolan about the matter. My guess is whatever issues Nolan was referring to about the photo in the late 1990's have since been resolved. I no longer have any objections to including it. Although out of curiosity, I do wish there was an article, blog, or something that went in-depth about the issue was and how it was resolved.
Winkelvi, I'm confused by your comment. I'm the person who started this discussion/section, which you replied to. Libertybison (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Development of section about Billy's place in folklore to meet the "broad in its coverage" standard

I've got hold of two of the three books I ordered, Tatum's Inventing Billy the Kid: Visions of the Outlaw in America, 1881 – 1981 and Tuska's Billy the Kid: His Life and Legend. An offline project is consuming my time at the moment, so I've had a chance only to skim the books, but a glance shows that both of them will provide a great deal of well-researched material to use as sources in developing a section covering Billy's place in folklore.

The second chapter of Tatum's book, "Inventing the Outlaw", traces the evolution of the mythos of Billy the Kid through different periods following his death up to the time of Watergate. There's a rich lode of information in its discussion of his place in cinema and literature, and how the apparent psychological complexity of the real Kid allowed for so many different interpretations of his character.

Tuska's book is a revelation. He examines scholarly, university-published books on the subject, of which there are many more than I realized, especially concerning the Lincoln County War, and doesn't withhold his criticisms of their problems and shortcomings. I was surprised most of all by his deprecation of Utley's work, and his assertion that much of it is Utley-created fantasy.

Tuska analyzes the different ways historians have approached the Kid in their books, as well as his influence in Western fiction and film, and has devised his own methodology to treat the legend in the book's fifth chapter, "The Legend of Billy the Kid", which is especially germane to the subject of Billy's place in folklore.

I will be happy to start a draft of a section addressing BlackJack's points, but it may be a few weeks before I have the time. If anyone else cares to tackle it, these two books would certainly be a good place to start, and may even be the prime sources. Carlstak (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree about Wichita undue weight

The content I added about the McCartys' time in Wichita is one of the most valuable parts of the article. It establishes that BTK's mother very likely was trying to build a stable home in Wichita for her boys: she was financially ambitious, she was civically involved, she and Antrim started a house and a garden. Then all of them had to abandon everything they had started, physically and psychologically, to try to save her life, and they failed at that. When she died BTK went off the rails - an orphan, fighting with the stepdad, homeless, having to steal food. Contrast those two scenarios. So it's very important to let the reader see where the flow of his life forked - the life that almost was vs. what turned out to be. I don't want to be so rude as to revert you, but I'd appreciate it if we and other editors could discuss this. Fishlandia (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything you've mentioned here is a perfect example of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH as well as WP:CRYSTAL. Undue, because you are adding unnecessary detail that is about the mother of the article subject, not the article subject himself; Synth and crystal because you are attempting to combine pieces of information to come to a conclusion based on speculation and personal opinion. Unless there is a direct quote from Bonney where he stated his mother's life choices and ultimate death led him down the criminal path he chose, the story you are trying to build as a psychological case study and evidence is simply not relevant to Bonney's history and this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that some of the information about their lives in Wichita that Fishlandia added should be included; especially about Catherine's laundry business and her being the only woman Wichita government founder, which in itself is historically significant and gives some necessary background on Billy's early life. I also agree their land claims should be mentioned but it doesn't need details of all the land improvements they claimed to have made. I should also point out that it's uncertain whether they left Wichita in the fall of 1871 or 1872. In his pension application, Antrim claimed it was October 1872, but some historians believe he was mistaken about the year due to the selling activity mentioned. Also, the citation link provided to the Kansas newspaper article didn't work when I typed it into my browser. Libertybison (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, while I see what you mean, I can't believe there's no way to convey the motivating tragedy of his life. Of course there is no "direct quote from Bonney" about it; if we reduced the article to direct quotes from Bonney it would be two sentences long. Nevertheless the facts are there and how you can say these are "simply not relevant" I don't understand. Libertybison, thanks for the common sense. I included the details about rose hedges, their success with real estate and the laundry business and the temptation of further success with the population boom, etc. because - Winkelvi is right - I wanted to show they were building a long-term home and what a cataclysm it was for them to leave it all. And to add some color. And Winklevi is also right in that in the context of the rest of the article it certainly is WP:UNDUE. (Also Winkelvi, my edit was not "about" his mother and stepfather, it was "about" Billy's environment.)

I agree that the parts about Catherine the sole woman signatory who owned her own laundry should be put back in. Other than that I'd just as soon leave it the way Winklevi has it, and write a real article instead ;) The kansas.com "cake, ice cream" article, I don't know, it opens for me. Fishlandia (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a true west journal or story-telling device. As stated by me previously and above, undue as well as crystal and synth apply to the content you added that was solely about Bonney's mother. While that may not have been your purpose, it is what that content amounts to and really doesn't aid the reader in better understanding the article subject from an encyclopedic standpoint. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Winklevi, you're right. Fishlandia (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I also agree with Winkelvi that the article shouldnt be bogged down in details about Bonney's mother and childhood. (The policy WP:CRYSTALBALL however has nothing to do with this, and seems to be misapplied to this situation)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
So are we in agreement in keeping it as is but with something like this: "where, Henry's mother opened a laundry business and was the only woman to sign the 124-signature petition to incorporate Wichita." added to the end of the sentence where they move to Wichita? That's the sense I get from Fishlandia, Wikelvi, and my comments but I don't know if adding the above would be acceptable to Maunus and I'd like their thoughts (and anybody else who's interested) on the matter. Libertybison (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
What does the "and was the only woman to sign the 124-signature petition to incorporate Wichita" add, exactly?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Maunus, to explain: My thoughts regarding crystal were in regard to how we can't speculate why anything has happened in history unless there is solid evidence for same. My reference to crystal was loosely based, not to the letter of the guideline. Too bad we don't have a policy or guideline called WP:TIMEMACHINE as it would be more closely related. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree WP:TIMEMACHINE would be a good essay to write about avoiding synthesis and speculation in historical articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Maunus, it's an historically significant fact (enough to be mentioned in the newspaper article about the anniversary of Wichita's founding cited by Fishlandia), that some readers may find interesting and gives color to Billy's life in Wichita for which there are few facts. Libertybison (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I see. I wouldnt consider it necessary myself, but I guess we loose nothing by including it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Libertybison, what you, yourself, said - that there are few facts available regarding Bonney's time in Wichita - gives even more weight to to reasons why not expanding on that time period is necessary for this article. We don't add content to create color to something we know little to nothing about. We add content to provide information. The reasoning you presented is suited to a true west journal, not an encyclopedia article. When it comes to lack of sourced, pertinent information, "just the facts" directly related to the article subject is what's appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Good morning! I'd like to chime in again to thank Libertybison for his fine suggested edit. But personally, I'd prefer that it all be kept off. Fishlandia (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

On further reflection, Winkelvi, I think you are right about the petition signature; although I would still consider his mother's occupation as a launderer as a "just the facts" statement about Billy but it's not that important a detail to get stuck on right now. Libertybison (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


In my opinion the Kid's short life in Wichita is as relevant as anything else in his life. Why it wouldn't be? This kind of biography can be called (not sure about the English word, though) "literary non fiction or narrative non fiction", so why a few sentences about his or, rather, his parent's life in Wichita would make the article less encyclopedic? If the source is reliable (and there are reliable sources: Nolan, Gardner, Weddle, Koop, Wallis etc.), some facts about the Kid's childhood is not a bad idea.

Image tube (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Billy the Kid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed forThe following coordinate fixes are needed for Birthdate of Billy the Kid/Henry McCarty. In your calendar November, the 23rd, shows his birthdate. When opening link to bring him up, his birthdate shows Sept 17th. Very big discrepancy. I looked up calendar September, no mention of him in 1859. —shaychu1 (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2016‎ (UTC)

shaychu1, one of the problems with Billy the Kid is that we don't know his definitive date of birth. There are various theories, which include the two dates you mention, plus the possibility that both are wrong and it was another date in the latter part of 1859, but it might even have been some other year.
I do not believe that you used an appropriate template here when you added geodata-check, and you should definitely not use a template to sign your posts: as it says at the top of the edit window, you should "sign your posts by typing four tildes". I've fixed your signature and included the date—I retained the lowercase "s" from the template, but if you want to use the capital "S" from your username, that's fine too. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Shaychu1 is referring to. It might be the list of births in the 1859 article. Libertybison (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Billy the Kid's birth

(Since I'm a relatively new editor with no experience or knowledge of the GA review process, I'm putting this comment in a new talk page section instead of the GA review page. If you think it belong there, feel free to move it.)

The September 17, 1859 birth in New York City to Patrick and Catherine Devine is only a theory and the article should make this clear and this information definitely should not be included in the infobox. It comes the 1980 article "The Search for Billy the Kid's Roots – Is Over!" by Jack DeMattos. It's mentioned by Utley and Nolan in their books but not accepted by them. I have not read the DeMattos article, can't find it online, and don't know where I might be able find a copy of it. So, I can only go by what other sources and what DeMattos said while editing this Wikipedia page; there might be more evidence to support his theory that I'm not aware of. If anybody does have access to a copy could they describe all of his evidence & arguments?

The theory seems based on the 1859 year of birth given in The Authentic Life of Billy, the Kid (1882), the 1860 census of this family (link here) and then locating the baptism record of that McCarty family's Henry (who's mother, Catherine was close in age to Billy's mother as given in her 1874 obituary). Along with proof that a Patrick McCarty, husband of Catherine, who lived at 210 Greene Street died sometime between 1863-1864. I can't tell if DeMattos actually proved the two Patrick McCartys were the same person.

Firstly, we can't be sure about 1859 as the birth year. Nolan writes here that George Coe in 1932 and Frank Coe in 1928 stated that they believed Billy was about 17 years old during the fight at Blazer's Mill in April 1878 (with footnotes here). A wire service article from 1881, claiming to reprint parts of a July 18, 1881 article by the Las Vegas, New Mexico Daily Optic newspaper writes here that Billy was 20 years old at the time of his death. If it does accurately quote the Daily Optic about Billy's age; presumably the newspaper reflected New Mexico locals knowledge which matched the Coes' later recollections. If Henry/Billy was born a year later than the date in the 1882 book, he couldn't show up in the 1860 census as Demattos thought.

Secondly, we have no direct evidence linking this other McCarty family to Billy's family. In fact, Koop writes here that in the Indianpolis city directories, Catherine lists herself as the widow of Michael and not Patrick.

I wouldn't be against including the September 1859 birth to Patrick and Catherine as a seemingly widespread theory that has yet to be proven or disproven but it shouldn't be stated as fact and the nonacceptance by other Billy the Kid scholars (like Utley or Nolan) should be noted. I'd like to hear other editors thoughts are on the matter before I make any changes, though. Libertybison (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC) Just adding a note here, the Catherine McCarty widow of Michael in the 1867 and 1868 is mentioned in Wallis. I couldn't think of where I read it as well as in Koop's article in my earlier posts. Libertybison (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing the exact quote for context. As well, keep in mind that first names used were not always first names given at birth, sometimes to differentiate from their father's first names if the same, and not only in the case of juniors and seniors. Fathers names would often be the same first name of sons, middle names differed - and this could be for more than one son in a family. Very possible his legal first name was Michael or could have been Patrick and the other was used commonly. This happened with census taking and much confusion was the result later on for historians and genealogists alike. For Wikipedia purposes, just because Wallis says 'Michael' that doesn't rule out 'Patrick' if we have other sources for the latter. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I should've included the page number in my previous post. The two Indianapolis directory entries are on mentioned on pg. 14 of Wallis. Libertybison (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I've linked to the page on Wallis on the city directories here. I actually agree with you that Michael or Patrick could have been a middle name and the Henry born on 17 Sept. 1859 to Patrick could be Billy. The point I was trying to make was that the 17 Sept. 1859 birth shouldn't be presented in the article as fact but as a theory since none of the major sources used in the article for Billy's life present it that way. Utley accepts it as possible but not yet proven, Nolan mentions it but seems to discount it, and Wallis doesn't mention it all because he seems to think Billy may have been born in Indiana instead of New York. (Although Wallis's contention that Billy's birth in New York was invented by newspaper reporters is contradicted by statements in William Antrim's pension file and Joseph Antrim's 1880 census record, which he doesn't address at all.) As far as I can tell, only Demattos's article presents it as a certainty. So, I think it should not be presented as a certainty but only a theory in the article text and should not be included in the infobox. Libertybison (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Not trying to get stuck on terminology too much, but I think "theory" isn't an accurate way to refer to the differing views and we should refer to it differently in the article itself. "Belief" is more like it, I think. Thoughts? Also, I'm not sure DeMattos would qualify as an actual historian. Writer, is more like it - especially when held up against Wallis and the others whose references are used in this article. If, however, the birth date is held to by two or more historians who are actual researchers, that is the one we should include in the infobox. We could place a cite (or a few) with it and possibly an embedded or small script notation next to it, indicating that the birthdate has been disputed or is in question. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, I guess I use "theory" to try to convey a more dispassionate tone in my own writing style but I think "belief" is also fine to use in the article. I still think it might be better/accurate to describe the evidence for the September 17, 1859 and why it's not certain in the article text than in the infobox. But then again writing it that way might be confusing to the reader, so you're embedded notation idea would be an acceptable compromise. Since BlueMoonset has also expressed similar concerns to mine about the birth date, I'd like to hear what their thoughts on this might be first. Libertybison (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It's been over a week and no response, so I'm assuming they're okay with it. Libertybison (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Image

Anyone know the copyright status of this image supplied by the Associated Press to the New York Times: https://static02.nyt.com/images/2016/07/02/us/nf-obits-billykid/nf-obits-billykidd-jumbo.jpg http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/obituaries/archives/billy-the-kid

Its copyright status doesn't matter. That is not an authenticated image of Billy the Kid. It has zero provenance to prove it. The caption, "This undated photograph shows who is thought to be the famed gunslinger Billy the Kid near the age of 18", itself should be a red flag, and does not constitute a provenance. Carlstak (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

How is that any different than the croquet picture displayed in the biography? The Associated Press and the New York Times believe it is him, and the text has the appropriate caveats. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither the New York Times and the AP are experts in photo authentication and just because a newspaper says a photograph is of somebody doesn't necessarily make it so. Mistakes happen all the time with wrongly identified photos in the media. Apparently the photo was sold at auction in 1994 for $50,000 by somebody named John Ray de Aragon who has a reputation of finding supposed Billy the Kid photos. In this September 2014 article about a completely different possible Billy the Kid photo claimed by Aragon, a Santa Fe Gallery owner who claims to know the anonymous owner of the 1994 photograph says that further tests are planned to try and authenticate the image (on pg. 4). Libertybison (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

New article, "Legend of Billy the Kid"

I have created a new article, Legend of Billy the Kid. I had written a "Legend" section for the "Billy the Kid" article, and realized that I had enough material for a separate article. I will write a synopsis for a corresponding section (using harvard refs) on "Billy the Kid" with a link to the main article when I get a chance, unless someone else wants to do it. Carlstak (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Death - how many lawmen in the room?

Text says Garrett had two deputies -- two sentences later "the pair sat in the room" -- so was only one with Garrett in the room? If so, it should say that before the pronoun "pair." 72.200.20.62 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm very curious as to how many death certificates aren't issued posthumously. 205.142.232.18 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent wording changes

I think they are not improvements. Another editor is choosing to edit war rather than observe BRD. Comments on the changes? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one starting an edit war rather than observing WP:BRD. Any competent professional copy editor can tell you that the active voice is generally preferred to passive voice. You do not own this article. Carlstak (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't "staffed" nor is it comprised of professional copy editors. If you have something specific to prove in the way of why this content is superior over what has been there for a long time, please feel free to present it here so we can discuss and work toward consensus. But the edit warring on your part needs to stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed the changes by Carlstak and would consider them all minor improvements of style. The only one that I might consider keeping as it was before is the one that says "the photo was reviewed", because the photo is the topic, and the passive construction fronts the topic and demotes the agents (who are less relevant in this specific context) to the position after the verb - this is a legitimate and useful use of the passive construction. The other corrections, including changes to active voice, are well motivated improvements.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It would seem that so far, the opinion of the most experienced editor in the discussion is the only one who has made a reasonable case for keeping the changed content. I'm fine with compromising on that, and I do agree that the content on the photo should be reverted to what it was, for the reasons Maunus stated. I'm not okay with pushing through edits just because and without any reasonable case made or attempt at actual discussion. I'm also not a fan of editors who then push through edits while discussion is still occurring rather than actually discussing. Such behavior is disruptive and totally against the purpose of finding consensus in a collegial editing environment. With all that said, I think it would be nice to let this discussion rest for a bit and see if anyone else has any other thoughts on it before calling a consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Making minor stylististic changes to prose is not "pushing through edits". Edit warring against a copyeditor with a reasonable argument for their changes is a bad idea for anyone who wishes to one day have an article passed through the peer review process.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Manaus that the sentence "The photo was reviewed by Old West history and tin-type photo experts in order to authenticate or deny the image's authenticity..." is a useful application of the passive voice, unlike the other instances. Note: At this point, Winkelvi is blocked for 3 months, so it seems he will not be contributing anymore to this conversation. Carlstak (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have also reviewed edit made here and agree that it is an unambiguous improvement. In my opinion, anyone restoring the phrasing, "While most of the claimants were disproven to be Bonney..." deserves a trout. I'm fine with keeping the status quo photo phrasing as suggested by maunus. VQuakr (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Date of Birth

What is the reference for September 17, 1859? Most sources give either unknown, late 1859, or November 23, 1859. Thisdaytrivia (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thisdaytrivia, the 23 November 1859 birthdate comes from the Authentic Life of Billy the Kid, written by Pat Garrett and ghost writer, Ash Upson. Neither man knew Billy's birthday so they used Ash's 23 November birthday for the book. The 17 September 1859 birthdate is a widely disseminated theory among serious researchers and enthusiasts which as far as I can tell has neither been fully accepted or rejected by them. Personally, I'm skeptical and think it might be for another person with the same name but as of this date there hasn't been enough research done either to prove or disprove the theory. There were earlier discussions about the birthdate, that you can read here and here. Libertybison (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC).

Libertybison Thanks. Good info. Thisdaytrivia (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Other music references

"Ballad of Billy the Kid" by Billy Joel "Billy the Kid" by Aaron Copland Tostegga (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I chronologically and then alphabetically ordered the music. Why chrono? Earlier works may influence later. Some works didn't have dates mentioned, perhaps we (any of us wiki editors) could 'find' the dates and insert the song in the the chrono order. Copland, wow, it would be great to have that listed Brunswicknic (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Billy the Kid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a game for professional "deniers" "flat Earthers" and professional skeptics to parlay. Forensic experts in a variety of fields have verified the authenticity of the Billy/Garrett tintype. This, as reported in The New York Times as well as newspapers, television news, and radio across the country and the world. There were five tintypes in the group, including the Billy/Garrett (with Dave Rudabaugh and Barney Mason and one unidentified individual) in the tintypes. Pat Garrett signed his lapel on the Billy/Garrett tintype. This is not subject to debate as forensic writing science results in either a "yes or no," the basis being that everyone's handwriting is different. "D . . . Rudabaugh" is written above "Dave Rudabaugh" "Billy" and "THE KID" are written on Billy. "W B....y" is also written. Facial matches and divisions are undeniable. "ASH" is written on the back of the Ash Upson tintype. It was written by Pat Garrett. Once again, undeniable. Another of the tintypes is Florence Muzzy, Ash's niece whom he regularly communicated with.

This game by those who claim "there was only supposed to be one picture of Billy" is just that, a game. Amongst the experts who have verified the tintype are Will Dunniway, tintype expert. Curt Baggett, forensic writing expert, and Kent Gibson, photo forensic expert.

The tintype is real. Will Dunniway believes that the same photographer who took the DU Billy picture may have taken this one. That, due to the reflective material showing in both pictures. There is also a belief that he is wearing the same sweater as in the DU Billy picture. He is also wearing the very same pinky ring as in the DU Billy picture.

Anyone can see that it is Pat Garrett on the right. He is wearing his trademark hat, and has his trademark mustache. Rudabaugh is holding an 1878 Colt frontier double action revolver. Billy is holding an upside down bottle of whisky. The date on the tintype is 8-02=80. This is the same time that according to John Meadows, Garrett was thinking about running for sheriff. In the book "The Tragic Days of Billy The Kid, by Frazier Hunt, Meadows is quoted as saying that Garret spoke with him. Garrett said that when he was considering running for sheriff he went to speak to Billy to tell him to leave for Old Mexico. The date on this picture, three months before he ran, comports exactly with the time period. It is real, and the world news coverage is an indication of how people feel. Leaving this out of Wikipedia makes Wikipedia look unprofessional and uninformed.71.81.220.74 (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Those who joined in the consensus that the photo should stay out aren't playing a game.
Yes, the tintype is real, but it has no official authentication, and that would need to happen for it to appear in the article at this point. And to be totally honest from my own assessment, the individual who is purportedly Bonney doesn't look a thing like him. At least in the croquet photo, the person whom experts say is Bonney actually looks like him. In the photo you are advocating for, the head shape is wrong, the distance from lower lip to bottom of chin is too short, the nose is different, he doesn't have the same prominent ears, and the width of the mouth is greater than that of Bonney in the only completely verified photo of him. Regardless of who else is or might be in that photo, the fellow you claim is Bonney isn't - not from what I can see. But better than my assessment, if someone as familiar with Bonney, the Regulators, and Garrett as Bob Boze Bell is, and he says it isn't Bonney, you should pay attention and hang your hat on it.
Lastly, leaving the photo out isn't going to do anything to the reputation of Wikipedia as you claim. We're an encyclopedia and we have standards in regard to inclusion of content. Until verified properly as authentic, the photo doesn't meet those standards. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

71.81.220.74 (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)== The Tintype is Verified. ==

The tintype is verified. It is in every article. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.220.74 (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

71.81.220.74 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)== One of the individuals posting actually thought that Ash Upson and Florence Muzzy were living people!!! ==

One of the individuals who attacked the Billy/Garrett post actually believed that Ash Upson and Florence Muzzy were living people and that there was a "conflict" in my mentioning them!!! He actually asked me if there was a "conflict of interest"!!! Ash Upson died in 1894 and was Garrett's friend who ghost wrote The Authentic Life Of Billy The Kid. Florence Muzzy was his niece, she died in 1939. Two of the tintypes of are these individuals. That this has to be explained to individuals who are editing this post is inexcusably sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.220.74 (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, the vehement IP's style is very similar to that of the reverter of the section's removal. The "flat-earthers" would actually be those who gullibly accept the claims of someone who might have an ulterior motive to include the picture in the article, or the person making those grandiose claims. I quote:

Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West magazine, said Abrams had showed him the photo. "I'm a skeptic by nature and profession," Bell said in a phone interview. "I've looked at probably 50 of these photos in the past 16 years since I've been editor and they basically have two things in common: They’ve all used facial recognition software; and they've all made a match. That has certainly given me pause about facial recognition as being scientific, because, ultimately, it's kind of a parlor trick. If they all match, they can't all be right... I love the photo just because it's so cool. But I don't think it's Billy the Kid." And, Paul Hutton, professor of history at the University of New Mexico, said, "Abrams has a very interesting photograph, but only as a historic photograph of cowboys.

It doesn't take a "facial forensics" expert to see that the purported image of Billy the Kid has no resemblance to the person in the only authenticated photo of BTK. It doesn't take a Ph.D in philosophy to see that what someone thinks about "Ash Upson and Florence Muzzy" has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a tintype whose authenticity is disputed and with no provenance should be included in the article. All arguments aside, without that provenance, the picture will never be "authenticated" to a serious buyer, and the owner will be free to enjoy looking at it and fantasizing about in perpetuity. Carlstak (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Many complaints about the individuals who keep changing this post.

Check the history of those who keep deleting this post, there are many complaints by others against them. The forensic experts say it is Billy The Kid and Pat Garrett together. Those who keep deleting this are playing a game. Wikipedia needs to be aware of this.Envirowhacko (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is aware, and based on consensus on this page, it appears to be yet another photo where the provenance is highly dubious, and thus has no place in a Wikipedia article. I suggest you step away from this; barring far more convincing evidence, the information does not belong in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Fake "consensus"

One individual keeps taking down the Billy/Garrett photo claiming a "consensus." The consensus of forensic experts is that it is real. Perhaps the consensus he is referring to are those who invent their own facts and play the wiki game.Chessfool (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

You've already been told several times in previous statements (seen above) by more than one editor... that's not how Wikipedia works. Consensus from the Wikipedia community is what counts along with verifiability and notability. The photo remains unauthenticated. Time for you to come clean about your other created accounts as well as your conflict of interest, "Chessfool"/"Envirowhacko"/"Frankabr."/anon IP. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Reference error

The reference "Rasch 2007, pp. 126–127." does not link to a citation in the Bibliography. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved
Thank you! Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Photos

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, isn't it? Once again, one alleged photo of Billy the Kid. The newest photo does not present BTK. Some people believe one of the men is Garrett. Who knows? If he is Garrett, why would you assume that one of the men with rosy cheeks is Billy the Kid? The guy does not even remotely look like BTK. There are dozens of "Billy the Kid photos", a few of them "verified". Is it okay to add all of them into the article? If one wants to add this photo, please add it into the article of Garrett.

Pekkate (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the section; it has no place in an encyclopedia article. Its references are laughably weak: besides being an unreliable source, the all-that-is-interesting.com website doesn't even mention the photo, the True West magazine blog pooh-poohs it, and the ABC Australia article offers no provenance, while the forensic video experts Abrams says he consulted aren't named. The BBC article mentions some avowed "experts", but does nothing to establish any sort of provenance. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and these references don't come remotely close. Carlstak (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a WP: Conflict of Interest with editor purporting to be Frank Abrams adding content to the article that might be used to lend search engine credibility to claims about the photograph, which could potentially benefit its owner. Carlstak (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
That is possible. I read this article: The Daily Telegraph article
"---is believed to be"---, "the pair were once friends who gambled and drank together in Lincoln County", "---man with the prominent Adam's apple"---, "---[the photo] was hanging for years in a North Carolina home---", "---he had assumed was a group of cowboys from the American South", "Mr Abrams eventually became convinced---", "---could be the Kid", "he consulted Robert Stahl, an expert on the Kidd and William Dunniway, a tintype specialist, who said the photograph was probably taken between 1875 and 1880", "---along with help from facial recognition technology and a hand-writing expert, they concluded it was indeed of the two friends-turned-enemies", "not only did the croquet picture of the Kid sell for $5 million in 2015---", "--- everybody is excited", "---Henry McCarty and also went by the name William H. Bonney, and Garrett had been friends---".
Lots of historical and other errors, lots of hearsay, lots of "wishful thinking" (as historian, and possibly the best BTK expert in the world, Frederick Nolan said about the croquet photo)... As to the facts it's tilting at windmills. Pekkate (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The editor calling himself "Frankabr." is Wp: not here to build an encyclopedia, as shown by his contributions page. He is concerned only with adding content to the article about a photo owned by Frank Abrams, content that could potentially be profitable for that person, as high-ranking Wikipedia search engine results would help lend spurious credibility to a contested photo. This person has also failed to defend his changes to the article on this talk page. Carlstak (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Carlstak, it's really inappropriate to call someone out like that on an article talk page. If you think they are truly WP:NOTHERE, take it to WP:AN/I. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
You also removed material added by uninvolved editors, cited to reliable sources. I've restored the last pre-CoI version. If you wish to add sourced refutation to that, please go ahead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I was mistaken about one thing—the Allthatisinteresting.com website article does mention the Abrams photo, but it doesn't support the statements it follows in the Billy the Kid article.
The paragraph in the BTK article says, "After examining the photograph, a video forensic expert in Los Angeles said his facial recognition software showed a match to both Billy the Kid and Garrett" and "a handwriting expert examined the photograph to compare a signature on it—purportedly by Garret—to ten documents with Garrett's known handwriting. In September, in a sworn statement, he declared them a match."
The All that is interesting article, however, says: "A similar situation arose in November 2017 when another alleged photograph of Billy the Kid, this time also said to include his killer Pat Garrett, made national news and was declared "authenticated." In reality, this photo suffers from many of the same problems as the photo above, most notably a lack of provenance. In the cases of both photos, Kent Gibson was the "facial recognition expert" who made the identifications."
Moreover, the True West Magazine article says: "Also, people use "facial forensics" with computers to try and map the contours of the face to match their new Billy with the face in the only known photo." I have seen so many Billy wannabe photos magically match perfectly with the only known photo that it's not even funny."
Finally, the ABC Australia website says: "Another tintype image of the Kid sold in 2011 for $US2.2 million. Experts believe a picture that shows the New Mexico outlaw with Garrett would be worth much more. However, Mr Abrams is not interested in finding out anytime soon."
It goes on to quote Abrams as saying: "One day it may end up at an auction house somewhere. We'll see what happens. Right now, that is not the first thing on my mind. I've always been somebody who's interested in history and background."
One would expect a person who owns a photo that would have great historical value if authentic, especially one worth millions, to be very interested in a decisive determination of its authenticity, and even more so if he is a man "interested in history". On the other hand, if he suspected that said photo were not authentic, he might hesitate to have it debunked decisively, and might think it more advantageous to let the case remain a mystery, leaving the matter open for more publicity. Carlstak (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Abrams' photo has already been removed with good cause. I found this article: Tallahassee Democrat website which is interesting. As to the the facial recognition software you can see with your naked eyes that it's not Billy the Kid in the photograph. The facial features do not match the only authenticated photograph, the famous Upham tintype.

And this: ABC Australia website Professor Stahl said he thought it was a "high probability" that it was Garrett in the photo, but he was not sure whether another man was Billy the Kid, also known as William Bonney. "I told him, 'The biggest thing you could do right now is get the picture out and let people look at it and give you feedback'," Professor Stahl said.

Contrary to some assumptions, Professor Stahl seems not to have verified the photo. And how could he, or anybody, verify it? Pekkate (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It says in the article: "--- the photograph was probably made between 1879 and 1880, coinciding with the date —August 2, 1880— written on its front." If the photo was taken August 2, 1880, it cannot be Billy the Kid in the photo. The historical facts do not support the date. For example, in January 1880, he had shot Joe Grant in Fort Sumner. By the autumn 1880, and even much earlier, Billy really was a wanted man. According to Robert Utley (A Short and Violent Life, p. 136), by November 1880, Billy had achieved a reputation that made him a major target of two separate manhunts. Garrett was elected sheriff on the 2nd of November, 1880. It is highly improbable that Garrett and Billy the Kid would have gambled and posed together in 1879–1880. In my opinion, the presence of Garrett in the photograph is not certain either. It's, unfortunately, more wishful thinking than hard facts.Pekkate (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The photo does not belong in the article. The image supposedly of Billy the Kid has no resemblance to the only one authenticated, and the farcical "facial forensics" don't match. Above all, the photo has no provenance, and without that, it will never be authenticated. Of course, Abrams knows that. The photo's presence depreciates the article and makes it appear to be unreliable. Carlstak (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Under the logic used at the start of this thread, shouldn't the croquet photo be removed as well? That one is far from accepted as authentic. Also, the Abrams photo has been put back, with the note: "Other editors have contrbted to this section)". Speaking as one of those editors, my vote would be to remove the photo; but, since I'm not a regular contributor, and didn't want to get involved in that fight, so I just simply added "alleged" (at a time when it was presented here as absolutely a photo of Billy the Kid and Garrett) and added two sources that call into question its authenticity: the True West blog and the all-that-is-interesting.com article (which does mention the photo in it's section about the alleged croquet photo) and provides some information about the alleged facial recognition expert. Anyway, I'll defer to more active editors to fight through this; but it does seem odd to start including alleged Billy the Kid photos, since there are so many out there.Shootseven (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)shootseven

I think it's a mistake to completely bar mention of photos that may be proven to be of BTK just because the old standards of proving provenance don't apply. Those old standards require a continued chain of custody that's can be traced back to the original time and place. While these standards have held up well, given the advance in photographic forensics, it is now or will soon be possible to validate the authenticity of a photograph from elements within the image itself: the clothing, face, locale, or geographic features. The croquet photo may be such an instance. The debate over the authenticity of such images, divorced from their origin, is notable of itself. I think the current language that shows the images are "purportedly" of BTK is sufficient. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 22:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is relevant information being ignored here? Jeff Aiello, who notably still owns the "croquet" photo because he can't find a buyer, told True West, "Facial recognition by one of the top forensic scientists in America, Kent Gibson, who provides his expertise to the U.S. Secret Service and FBI, proved the image contains Billy the Kid."
True West continues: "However, there are two problems with this claim. First, Gibson admitted that the supposed match wasn't good enough to hold up in a court of law. Secondly, Gibson was the same person who identified Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan in a recently discovered photograph purporting to show the two as prisoners of the Japanese. That photo was quickly debunked when it was discovered that it had been published two years before Earhart's disappearance. Two years after it made international news, the tintype remains unsold.
A similar situation arose in November 2017 when another alleged photograph of Billy the Kid, this time also said to include his killer Pat Garrett, made national news and was declared "authenticated". In reality, this photo suffers from many of the same problems as the photo above, most notably a lack of provenance. In the cases of both photos, Kent Gibson was the "facial recognition expert" who made the identifications."
Kent Gibson's identifications are neither reliable nor authoritative.
Rather than taking a permissive "come-one, come all" approach to the inclusion of purported photos of BTK, sure to result in a proliferation of questionable (to say the least) candidates like this one, we should apply the same standards to purported photos of BTK that any serious buyer would expect to be met before shelling out his cash. Let's not forget that Google search often places Wikipedia info at the very top of search results for queries. We shouldn't squander WP credibility on every half-baked pretender that comes along. Carlstak (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has well-known credibility problems that have been documented worldwide for years as well as recently. The addition and removal of questionable images to a well-monitored article isn't going to damage WP's credibility any further. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Carlstak. I found this article: cron.com website. ″Could there be a new photograph of Billy the Kid? Famed Houston forensic artist Lois Gibson says yes.″ According to the article Lois Gibson (may be not related to Kent Gibson) is regarded as the forensic expert. If you accept the croquet photograph and the Billy/Garrett photograph you should also accept few or even a few other photographs (and, possibly, the more is yet to come) in the article. What about making a new article about the photographs of Billy the Kid, where you could add all the purported pictures of BTK?Pekkate (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Look at the notarized statement (with accompanying photographs) made by the handwriting expert who examined the Abrams tintype.

I invite everyone who cares about the subject to take a look at the notarized statement (with accompanying photographs) made by Curt Baggett of Richardson, Texas, the handwriting expert who examined the Abrams tintype, and came to the conclusion that the purported signature of Pat Garrett on the image was indeed a match to Garrett's known handwriting and signatures on other documents.

You don't have to be an "expert" to see that the signature on the Abrams photo is not remotely similar to the known example on the gunstock shown in the photo featured in the pdf file I've linked to. Remarkably, Baggett, in support of his opinion (as he says), includes an excerpt from Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals by Roy A. Huber and A.M. Headrick, that reads as follows:

Harrison made similar comments: "...the fundamental rule which admits of no exception when handwritings are being compared ... is simple — whatever features two specimens of handwriting may have in common, they cannot be considered to be of common authorship if they display but a single consistent dissimilarity in any feature which is fundamental to the structure of the handwriting, and whose presence is not capable of reasonable explanation."

Regardless of Baggett's claims, even naifs can see for themselves that the capital letter "P" in the purported Garrett signature on the Abrams tintype is the only part of that signature in print handwriting that even vaguely resembles the legible parts of the cursive one written on the gunstock. Baggett's opinion that these are authored by the same person would appear to directly contravene "the fundamental rule" of handwriting analysis he quotes.

As for the video forensic expert, Kent Gibson, referenced but not named in the WP article on Billy the Kid, his identification of a purported photo of Amelia Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan in Japanese captivity that made news this past summer has been refuted and the photo discredited. Carlstak (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Purported photo of Bonney, et al

Anyone else besides me have a real problem with the "Ferrotype purportedly of Bonney, Garrett, and three others" sub-section? The writing is terrible, there's speculation, too many "probably" statements, and it just seems to me if there's so much general skepticism about the photo by experts that we shouldn't even be including it in the article. Is there any real notability in regard to the photo to begin with? If there is, it could be treated as more of a curiosity, but as it is, it seems as if including it suggests it's a photo of likely historic value when the narrative says something else. I'd love to read some more thoughts and opinions over the matter. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you know that Pekkate and I never thought it belonged in the article to begin with. I removed it, and Pigsonthewing restored it. It's not notable in this context, and has no place in the article. Carlstak (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Then, that's three of us. Do we need an RfC or should we just chalk this up to obvious consensus and remove it? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Shootseven, one of the "other editors" who contributed to this section, says, "Speaking as one of those editors, my vote would be to remove the photo", so that that makes four of us. The other editors who contributed to the section don't seem to be very invested in it, as none of them have joined this ongoing discussion; they've had ample time. I added content to the section per Pigsonthewing's suggestion, "If you wish to add sourced refutation to that, please go ahead", but only to lend some balance. It seems to me that the consensus here is to remove the section. I don't see the need for an Rfc. Carlstak (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Consensus of four is good enough. I'm going to remove it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The three pictures should be retained

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

All fans of Billy the Kid will be interested in seeing the three pictures as they can decide for themselves if the croquet picture and the group picture are genuine. (5.81.222.213 (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a fansite. Consensus is clearly against the inclusion of this photograph. Start an RFC if you wish, but the photo will not be included until consesnus to include it has been reached. Scr★pIronIV 13:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
If the croquet picture - which cannot be verified - is allowed to remain, why not the group picture as well? (5.81.222.213 (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC))
The croquet picture has notability, the purported wedding photo does not. There are numerous photos out there that allegedly show Billy the Kid and/or the Regulators. We cannot name them all - doing so would be akin to adding WP:TRIVIA. It is addressed in the article that several purported BTK photos exist, having one with notability is appropriate. Having more than that is not. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
If neither image can be verified, how can one be more notable than the other? (DonGibson (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC))
The croquet photo is disputed as authentic, however, there are notable experts who believe it's authenticity. As well, the croquet photo has notability. Take a look at the article on the photo for references, etc. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Billy the Kid

This discussion copied from Baffle gab1978's talk page.

I have been asked to take a look at recent edits to Billy the Kid that were undone on the basis of a conviction that the edits by and large did not represent an improvement and on the fact that you had recently completed a GOCE copy-edit, and offer an opinion. Before I ventured to say anything about the edits in question, I thought I'd look to see when you had completed the copy-edit. I looked on the talk page and did not see the GOCE template indicating that you had completed a copy edit. I then looked in the revision history and saw that you had completed the copy-edit around 24 November, which, while not yesterday, was fairly recently. Here is the template: {{GOCE|user={{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|date={{subst:date}}}}, which you could save to your list of tools and copy and paste to a talk page when you have completed a copy-edit. I think it is a good idea to post that template because if another editor saw that the article had recently been copy-edited by a GOCE editor, he or she might refrain from undertaking an extensive re-doing of the prose in the article, or at least might consult with the copy-editor. Might. So, unless Rosalina523 had studied the edits of the last month, she would not have known that a member of the Guild of Copy Editors had recently completed a copy-edit. Of course, even if she had known, she was free to copy-edit further.

I kind of agree with Checkingfax on a few of the changes in wording, but what complicates things is that, in addition to making quite a few changes to wording, the editor, Rosalina523, added sourced content. So, when Checkingfax undid all of Rosalina523's edits, the added content went, too. I also wondered, regarding that added content, whether too much detail was added. EEng, what is your opinion about the added content? Feel free also to comment on the changes to the prose. Rosalina523 is a long-time WP editor with an academic background, so will be taken aback by the wholesale revert. It would be unfortunate if an edit war started, or feelings were ruffled, over this. I think we ought to adopt a more intelligent approach so that no one's feelings are ruffled and we end up with the best prose. I think the question of whether or not the material added by Rosalina523 is a bit too much detail needs to be answered first. Perhaps some, but not all, of that information could be re-added, or perhaps the details could be expressed more concisely. I'm not an expert on writing articles or adding content. Then, if Rosalina523 feels strongly that her wording was better, Baffle gab1978, myself, or someone else would have to discuss the wording changes one by one. I'm willing to do that, but would like to wait until I hear from EEng about the content (and/or wording). Finally, I wrote this comment here because it was Baffle gab1978 who had completed the GOCE copy-edit, but if anyone feels this should be copied to the talk page of the article, please feel free to do that.  – Corinne (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) – Hi, y'alls. I am not interested in an edit war, and will be listening intently to your takeaway. I take undoing edits very seriously. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I tried to take a quick look, but it's too much for me to take on right now – I'm on deadline for a week or so. Corinne, can you ping me in maybe nine days if this is still an issue? Sorry, but that's the best I can do. EEng 02:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course, EEng. There's no hurry, and I've got other articles to copy-edit in the meantime.  – Corinne (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think that it would be helpful for this discussion to happen at the article's talk page instead of here. I took a brief glance at the copy edits done by Rosalina523; some of them looked like helpful style improvements, while others (like changing "newly appointed" to "newly-appointed") were not MOS-compliant, as far as I can tell (MOS says "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb"). – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

(←) Thanks all for the heads-up(s); I did the copy-edit in good faith at the request of @Checkingfax: who, as you say @Corinne:, added new content about a newly-authenticated photograph of Bonney at my suggestion as per a feature article on the ABC's website; a reliable source. I then copy-edited the new content once I reached it. I think my changes (check intervening edits for more details—I did more work than this link suggests) made the article more readable and whilst I'm disappointed my copy-edits were reverted, I'm unwilling to get involved in content issues or edit wars.

Templating article talk pages is optional and I choose not to do so because I feel my work should be 'invisible'. As you'll have noticed, I clearly mark my starting and finishing edits "Requested GOCE copy-edit" in my edit summaries, and intervening edits as "copy-edit", and I also clearly inform requesters when I start and finish my copy-edits. I'll be happy to comply if the community sees fit to implement compusory article talk page templating.

@Jonesey95:, thanks for your well-reasoned comments; I haven't revisited the article since ending my c/e and I cannot comment on more recent copy-edits. If the article returns to the GOCE requests page I'll be happy to revisit it providing it's stable. I agree this discussion should occur at Talk:Billy the Kid; please feel free to copy this converstation over to that page to keep context intact. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978, thank you for explaining your reason for not posting the GOCE template. Each to his own, I say. I am, though, a little puzzled by your comment above saying you were disappointed that your copy-edits were reverted. I don't see where your copy-edits were reverted. I was referring to Checkingfax's revert of Rosalina523's edits back to the version of Serols. I don't see any intervening edits by you there, and I didn't make any comment about your edits. At Jonesey95's suggestion, I will now copy this discussion to the talk page of the article.  – Corinne (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)  – Corinne (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Corrine; I misread your text above, sorry. I've now read it fully and understand my edits weren't reverted wholesale, but that another c/e was done afterwards and new material added, which is fair enough. I've no further interst in the article and I've moved on—so many requests, so little time! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Since this discussion has been copied from Baffle gab1978's talk page to this talk page, I will respond to his bit about the supposed "newly-authenticated photograph of Bonney". The Abrams photo is not authenticated. It takes a credulous soul indeed to read that ABC Australia article and deduce that it is anything more than a journalistic fluff piece. ABC may be a reliable source for news events, but it is certainly not a reliable source for accurate information concerning the non-existent "authentication" of the Abrams photo. I would point out that the words "authenticated" or "authentication" do not appear in the ABC article, which asserts: "Experts believe a picture that shows the New Mexico outlaw with Garrett would be worth much more." The referenced "experts" are not named. Note also that the words "worth millions" in the title, Billy the Kid: Photo of outlaw with his killer Pat Garrett 'worth millions' after flea market discovery are in single quotation marks. Nothing cited in the ABC article actually supports this grandiose claim. This is an exceedingly weak source. Carlstak (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne for taking a look at the situation, although I'm not sure who requested it. The edits that I made were more than simple copyedits. The reverted edits also included corrections of facts, an incorrect date, and an out of context quote that I verified the sources. I also added inline citations to support the revised content, but those were reverted too. It not worth going back to reinstate the minor copyedits, no problem, let's let those go. However, I would like to try and correct the content of a paragraph in the "Outlaws" section related to his dealings with Lew Wallace - what happened and why is relevant to Bonney's later actions. Also the "Posthumous pardon request" content - it related to Brady's death AND Wallace's alleged arrangement to get Bonney's testimony, two different things. It seems odd to me that the details were deleted - they relate to major events in his life, his later actions, and why Gov. Richardson didn't agree to a pardon in 2010. Any major concerns if I go back to those two paragraphs and revise them again?Rosalina523 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Rosalina523, Baffle gab1978 has already said he is not interested in the details and has moved on to other things. I have no problem with your planned corrections. Checkingfax? What about you? EEng can comment when s/he has time, but I'd say, go ahead.  – Corinne (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm still pretty swamped, so call me if you have something specific. You know I always love answering your questions. EEng 01:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I've updated one paragraphis in the Outlaw section that had revised content, corrected dates, and inline citations, which were removed in December 2017. Rosalina523 (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Dedrick ferrotype

How do we know for certain the picture is of Billy the Kid? (86.156.198.189 (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC))

Because it's been authenticated with a proven provenance, unlike any other purported images of Billy the Kid, as you could have found by fact-checking for yourself. Provenance is everything in authentication. Carlstak (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It's the long-standing accepted and authenticated photo of Bonney, 86.156.198.189. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
We know for sure the photo is of Billy the Kid because it was used as the source material for the illustration of Billy in the 08 January 1881 issue of the Illustrated Police News, which was published before his death. That, along with the proven provenance of the Dedrick photo is enough to be sure. You can read more about the history of the photo in this article here. Libertybison (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Split

I think the "selected references" section would be better of split into a list named List of works about Billy the Kid. "Selected" lists are rather confusing to have on Wikipedia in my opinion. It would be better if it could be collected in a single list instead.★Trekker (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's confusing the way the article is set up now. Libertybison (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Same same. Carlstak (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Good to see everyone agrees so far.★Trekker (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
@Libertybison:, @Carlstak: do you guys think we need more input or shuld we go ahead and be bold?★Trekker (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I say be bold. If anyone objects, I'm sure we'll hear about it. Carlstak (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Done!★Trekker (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Nice. Carlstak (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Well done! Pekkate (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"El Chivato"

Local Hispanic called Billy "El Chivato" loosely slang for CHEBLITO, or young goat, The Kid Gdawson123 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Age at mother's death

Bonney was born either sept 17 or nov 23, 1859. His mother died sept 16 1874. At that date Bonney was either 14 years and 364 days old, which is one day less than 15 tears old, and therefore about 15 years old; or he was 14 years, 9 months and 24 days old, which is considerably closer to 15 years ald than it is to 14 years old, and therefore about 15 years old, and not reasonably about 14 years old. Asgrrr (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we just go with "he was fourteen", since it has the benefit of being both a) true, and b) accurate without argument? I'll make the change.--Jorm (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Because we generally round up in math.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


If the church has records showing he was baptized on September 28th 1859, why do some people think he was born in November? Surely it is obvious he must have born sometime before September 28th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.72.209 (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Church records have been known to be wrong. Degen Earthfast (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Murdered/Killed?

"After murdering a blacksmith during an altercation in August 1877, McCarty became a wanted man in Arizona and returned to New Mexico, where he joined a group of cattle rustlers. He became well-known in the region when he joined the Regulators and took part in the Lincoln County War of 1878. McCarty and two other Regulators were later charged with killing three men, including Lincoln County Sheriff William J. Brady and one of his deputies."

Wouldn't it be better if this read "After killing a blacksmith...." and ".....later charged with murdering three men"? The former (if the circumstances as described are accurate) would be most likely to attract a manslaughter charge (or whatever the US equivalent is), whilst the latter must surely have been a charge of "murder" (does any jurisdiction have a charge of "killing" - as distinct from "murder", "manslaughter", "unlawful killing" etc?).

I didn't edit the page - just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.18.219 (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

guns

I just saw on TV that Sheriff Garrett's gun that Bonney was shot with, will go up for auction next month and is expected to sell for $2 million. Bonney's own gun sold for $64,000 a couple years ago, according to the same TV clip. This might be mentioning in the article after the upcoming auction, assuming it's reported in some usable source. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

"Irish American"

Only "American" is needed in the lede. (Westerhaley (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC))

The article is often victim of an POV-pusher who adds the Irish ancestry everywhere, no matter how remote or unsourced that claim is. The Banner talk 11:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think it's uncertain if BtK was born in Ireland, the US, or on a ship somewhere in between. It seems to be agreed that he spent his earliest years in the US in an Irish-American immigrant community in NY City, and then went West with his mother after his biological father died. And then his mother died.
I'm really not sure how much of an ethnic identity he would've had for most of his life. My guess is that this wasn't a significant factor. Although I have read that he may have been a fluent Irish speaker (in addition to English and Spanish), but sources for this are mostly news articles.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did he die in a war

Billy fought in a war in New Mexico and killed 3 people he should not have been in prison from a war but he did kill more people though on purpose did he actually mean to kill them on purpose or was it just because it was a war 2600:387:C:551B:0:0:0:A (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

He killed his victims on purpose. If the word 'war' has you imagine a battlefield with bombs going off, you have the wrong idea; the Lincoln County War was more like a protracted feud, with retaliatory violence between the sides. Arlo James Barnes 12:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Billy the kid

Billy the Kid actual given name is William Henry Bonney, Jr not William McCarty. McCarty was his stepdads name. I’m a descendant of Billy. 67.2.200.88 (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Name

The lede states, and I quote, "Henry McCarty (September 17 or November 23, 1859 – July 14, 1881), better known as "Billy the Kid" and also by the pseudonym William H. Bonney". Someone previously started to replace Bonney with McCarty and I finished it as we can't go using two different names to describe the person person in the same article. IMHO --Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Well done - makes it much easier to follow the narrative

81.157.18.219 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

He was better known as Bonney, shouldn't this be the name used throughout the article? 162.208.168.92 (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Not if it's a fake name/alias.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Lots of people are known to history by a "fake" name or alias, like David Bowie or Voltaire. I've never seen a single book that refers to this person regularly as McCarty. It's always Bonney, Billy or the Kid. Utley, for example. The standard to use is what name is preferred by reliable sources, and it would shock me if that's McCarty. 2600:1700:4420:24A0:F8C8:BFCC:4D54:5968 (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There are quite a few uses of "Bonney" in the article currently that should probably be "McCarty". Maybe they've snuck in since Degen Earthfast cleaned up the article. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll once again pipe in to say that "William Bonney" is the common name, as seen in most reliable sources. See also WP:NAMECHANGES. There's no requirement to use the birth name, and in this case, it leads to confusion. 162 etc. (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@162 etc. I'm kind of confused by this. I kinda remember that in the US at that time you could assume yourself a new name with no need for legally changing it. (for example, Muhammad Ali didn't ever legally change his name because he didn't have to.) If we are going to keep on referring to Billy as McCarty, the article should atleast have a section to explain why, because Bonney is such a well known part of his legend and is even used in most of the sources of the article.--85.76.35.178 (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I've made a bold edit to the article. He used the name "William H. Bonney" beginning in 1877 - this is confirmed by a reliable source cited. Therefore, the article now refers to him as "McCarty" for events prior to 1877, and "Bonney" from 1877 onward. 162 etc. (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

Billy the Kid was born William Henry Bonny, Jr not William McCarty. My uncle has the proper paperwork to prove it. 107.122.177.21 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Provide reliable source you say? About a person that never excisted? That's really hard. Because the story about Billy the Kid is, as Moby Dick, a folklore. A saga, a lie. 188.113.95.213 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
his father was William Harrison Bonney. Son of Levi Bonney and Rhoda Pratt. His true name is William Henry Bonney. He is my second cousin .family records are proof. 2600:1011:B00D:3CA0:0:27:2181:7D01 (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox person

Why nobody mentioned that he was a deputy as Lincoln County Regulators 82.200.143.211 (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Link to Lincoln War Article

He became well known in the region when he joined the Regulators and took part in the Lincoln County War of 1878.

Add link to Lincoln County War Gi edits wiki (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Billy_the_Kid/Archive_5&oldid=1255951985"